9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled with the accounts in assessee’s books of account and creditors’ books of account, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. However, where the CIT(A) found that the assessee has failed to reconcile the difference amount in between the books of account of assessee and the books of account of the two creditors, to that extent the addition has been confirmed. Since it is a matter of reconciliation and the CIT(A) after detailed examination of each and every party’s account, the addition has been sustained and accordingly balance addition has been deleted. The Revenue and assessee both have failed to point out any contrary material to the finding of the CIT(A), nor any such material is available on record. - ITA Nos.16/Agr/2012, 461 & 462/Agr/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2012 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, JJ. Revenue by : Km. Anuradha, Jr. D.R. ORDER PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Revenue and assessees against two different orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Gwalior dated 10.10.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. None was present on behalf of the assessee. After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative, we proceed to decide these appeals on merit as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of Rs.5,52,600/- is unjustified and passed without appreciating facts of the case in proper context. 2. That learned assessing authority as well as appellate authority ought to have appreciated the fact that addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made on account of investment in construction of building is neither substantiated by any valuation report called to assess, value/cost of building nor by any other facts. 3. That, learned assessing authority as well as appellate authority ought to have appreciated that addition made/confirmed of Rs.52,600/- on account of discrepancy found in the books of creditors is negligible and may be due to numerous other factors like variation in accounting system followed by creditors and assessees, trade practices and other matters. 4. No proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the applicant. 5. Other grounds will be urged at the time of hearing. 7. We first take up the appeals of the assessees i.e. ITA Nos.461/Agr/2011 462/Agr/2011. The brief facts of the case in these appeals are that both the assessees are engaged in the business of sale of suits, sarees and dress material on wholesale basis. In both the cases, survey under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. Even otherwise also, the CIT(A) noted the details that the assessee has failed to furnish evidence in support of the reduction of the disclosure made at the time of survey. The assessee himself incorporated and declared the full amount in building construction/investments. The assessee did not furnish convincing reasons for not declaring the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- surrendered at the time of survey. There is no material on record against the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, in the light of the fact, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on the issue. Orders of the CIT(A) are confirmed. Thus, ground no.2 in both the appeals are dismissed. 10. The third ground is common ground in cross appeals in the case of Shri Naresh Nandlal Taluja. The ground no.3 of the assessee s appeal is in respect of addition of Rs.97,341/- made by the A.O. on account of discrepancy found in the books of creditors. The brief facts of the issue are that during the assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed discrepancies in amount shown by the assessee vis- vis in the information received under section 133(6) of the Act from different creditors. The A.O. made addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirm the order of the CIT(A) on the issue. 13. Ground nos.1 5 raised in assessee s appeal in case of Shri Naresh Nandlal Taluja are general in nature requires no specific finding. 14. As regards ground no.4 of the assessee in the case of Shri Naresh Nandlal Taluja, we noticed that the CIT(A) has considered the assessee s submissions and there are material on record which show that the assessee was provided opportunity of hearing. The assessee did not put presence before us also inspite of opportunity of hearing was given. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this ground and thus the same is rejected. 15. Now we take up the remaining grounds in Revenue s appeal. 16. The first ground is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.3,75,506/- on account of unexplained investment made in the closing stock. The A.O. made addition on difference in closing sock. The A.O. noticed that the valuation of stock as per survey report was Rs.39,84,390/- whereas in the books of account the value of closing stock was Rs.30,31,886/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,75,506/-. The CIT(A) deleted the said addition on the ground that the assessee has furnished reason for difference in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed on the issue. 20. Now we come to the remaining grounds in the case of Smt. Madhu Taluja. 21. Ground nos.1, 4 5 are similar to the ground nos.1, 4 5 in the case of Shri Naresh Nandlal Taluja which have been decided in paragraph nos.13 14 of this order. These grounds are decided accordingly. 22. Ground no.2 has already been decided as discussed above in paragraph no.9. 23. Ground no.3 pertains to addition of Rs.52,600/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of discrepancy found in the books of creditor. The A.O. made addition of Rs.7,35,245/- on account of discrepancy noticed by him in the books of account vis-a-vis information received under section 133(6) from different creditors. The CIT(A) after examining each and every party s account and after considering reconciliation filed by the assessee, found that the assessee has failed to furnish evidence or order of reconciliation in the case of Dhingra Textiles to the extent of Rs.52,600/-. The CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition to that extent and deleted the balance addition. We notice that the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.52,600/- after examining account of each and every parties where difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
